ATGC Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 QoS was definitely good. Watched it a couple of days... Action A+ Plot B+ Acting A+ Worth it? Definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3bruts1d Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Went and saw this the other day. I have mixed feelings about it. The high tech stuff in the office was cool, but no "Q"?? Come on! It had a lot of action in it, and the care chase was amazing.... though it really felt like they were trying to hard to turn Bond into Borne. Which is cool and sucks as the same time. Story was a bit "meh". Though I can't really think of any Bond movie that had a great story. Also, Craig reminds me a lot of the Connery Bond, minus the gadgets of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cork1958 Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Mediocre through and through. Dude playing Bond does not impress me at all. Doesn't even look the part. Used to be a big fan of Bond movies, but last one's haven't blown my hair back at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev1n Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 You are kidding right? Daniel Craig is the best since Connery... if not the best outright. Next to him, Brosnan is a sissy with a beer gut. Even with an average finale, Casino Royale has to be in the top three Bond movies ever. The stunningly awesome end scene is the perfect icing on the cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran Posted November 27, 2008 Veteran Share Posted November 27, 2008 This was a good film, very exciting. I give it 9/10. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftyflip86 Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 I have to agree with a lot of you here. I went in knowing one of the main themes was going to be about revenge for Vesper but while Craig and Kurylenko were just about perfect it did feel too much like a Van Damme movie at times which is a shame. Am I the only one that was bugged by the anti-piracy 'dots' appearing throughout the film? I don't know why but I kept seeing them :/ Anyways, it had a fairly good start but it got lost because of a bad story with no substance. Hopefully for the next movie they can get back on track and bring it back up to the par of Casino Royale. 6/10 If you're talking about the yellow circles that appear at the upper right of the screen: they tell the projectionist when to switch to the next reel of film. They are also shown at the beginning of the film reels so they know where to start threading into the projector. Movies shown in digital projection don't have them since they're played on computer servers. Enough about that boring stuff though. I saw the movie today and avoided reading reviews (aside from looking at the Rotten Tomatoes & Metacritic scores) and the movie did not meet my expectations. I guess since I thought Casino Royale was so good, I expected more out of this one. There was plenty of action. However, like others, the story just didn't click with me. And I did feel like they chose the right actors & actresses but none of them were used to their full potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inctye Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 I saw the movie earlier this week. Certainly follow the cardinal rule of trying to refrain from reading reviews of any kind before heading to the theater, since it alters your perception while watching it and ruins any element of surprise. I agree with most of what you guys said, clear consensus is the story line was what disappointed most. The acting and action scenes were superbly done as we saw in Casino Royale. But, there is just too much lacking from the traditional Bond that we have been used to in the first 20 movies before CS. Bond has lost his true character; not many quirky remarks, not much humor, no flirting with sexy women. The villians have become "naked" in the sense they are not superficial in any way. Just plain and ordinary with mysterious plots that don't involve powerful weapons anymore. Rather just some realistic present-day scenario like secretly controlling the underground water supply and charging big money from water shortages. And why did they ever get rid of Q? His gadgets always created some sort of suspense as to keeping you wondering how they would be used later in some amazing fashion. Once again, there is nothing in the movie that cannot be purchased today, including those microsoft surface-like tables in one of the scenes. Just sad. I hope Ian Fleming brings back some of the old for the next movie. To say the least, my expectations have more or less hit rock bottom so anything better than this will be well received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 I thought the movie was excellent, personally. Just as good as Casino Royale. It would've been better had the ending been less of a "thud" kind of moment, but still a very excellent movie. I think some of you are being far too nostalgic for a movie that was released two years ago (Royale). A lot of the complaints levied against this film could be levied against that one, too. It's funny how everyone wants a retooling of the Bond franchise, then when they get it, they complain. Bond was ruthless in Royale just as he was ruthless in this one. If this was a Bourne-esque movie, how was Casino Royale anything but? Because it had a poker game? I mean, that movie didn't have any of the catch phrases that everyone's mad aren't in this one, but no one bitched and moaned then. Q wasn't in Royale, but no one complained then (well, some did, but not as many). Then the things that are the same as the Bond movies before Royale gets everyone mad. He runs around from locale to locale? Hello, this is James Bond! It's like that in almost every single Bond movie, including Casino Royale. And I'm sorry, but Casino Royale's storyline was no Pulitzer Prize-winner, either. Just IMO in regards to a few of the complaints I've seen. It's my opinion, not trying to slight anyone for their opinion. 4.5/5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Watched it tonight, and it certainly wasn't as bad as a lot of people are painting it out to be. It wasn't a patch on Casino Royale, and it suffers from a weak plot, but it is definitely worth watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanManIt Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Good action which is why I liked it more than Casino Royale. Terrible story which didn't even make sense at times which really killed the movie. I'd say a 5/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Good action which is why I liked it more than Casino Royale.Terrible story which didn't even make sense at times which really killed the movie. I'd say a 5/10 What exactly didn't make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NienorGT Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 After seeing Casino Royal reboot, I was not hoping too mush with Quantum and it succeeded to disappoint me more... Seriously, the movie suck, there NOTHING that look like a James Bond here... Where are the gadget? Where are the traditional, Bond, James Bond used in every movies, where is the funny part of James, since when James Bond is someone vengeful that just kill anyone anywhere on an rampage? About the action scenes, they are so charged and fast, that I wasn't able to fellow them... I give it a 1/5 because it's NOTHING like a true James Bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 After seeing Casino Royal reboot, I was not hoping too mush with Quantum and it succeeded to disappoint me more...Seriously, the movie suck, there NOTHING that look like a James Bond here... Where are the gadget? Where are the traditional, Bond, James Bond used in every movies, where is the funny part of James, since when James Bond is someone vengeful that just kill anyone anywhere on an rampage? About the action scenes, they are so charged and fast, that I wasn't able to fellow them... I give it a 1/5 because it's NOTHING like a true James Bond. Have you ever read the novels? In Casino Royale (the novel) there is no mention of a Q and only a passing mention of Moneypenny by Bond. Hardly worth noting in the film. The reboot is more like the novels. Which is great IMO. I hated all of the previous Bond films because of how different they made them from the novels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Floyd Veteran Posted December 8, 2008 Veteran Share Posted December 8, 2008 :no: Saw the movie with my wife where she is a huge fan of Daniel Craig and we both loved Casino Royale. Quantum was not as good as Casino unfortunately :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev1n Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 After seeing Casino Royal reboot, I was not hoping too mush with Quantum and it succeeded to disappoint me more...Seriously, the movie suck, there NOTHING that look like a James Bond here... Where are the gadget? Where are the traditional, Bond, James Bond used in every movies, where is the funny part of James, since when James Bond is someone vengeful that just kill anyone anywhere on an rampage? About the action scenes, they are so charged and fast, that I wasn't able to fellow them... I give it a 1/5 because it's NOTHING like a true James Bond. Casino Royale didn't have that either. And revenge was the main story in Licence to Kill. The editing and some of the fights were stolen from Bourne, but for the most part the setup of the action scenes were quintessential Bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 After seeing Casino Royal reboot, I was not hoping too mush with Quantum and it succeeded to disappoint me more...Seriously, the movie suck, there NOTHING that look like a James Bond here... Where are the gadget? Where are the traditional, Bond, James Bond used in every movies, where is the funny part of James, since when James Bond is someone vengeful that just kill anyone anywhere on an rampage? About the action scenes, they are so charged and fast, that I wasn't able to fellow them... I give it a 1/5 because it's NOTHING like a true James Bond. Sigh... I really dislike when people say it's not "true" to James Bond and they've never even read the actual source material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeblogg Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 i'd give it 7/10. it was good but i think Casino Royale was definately better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denholm Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 This is the first James Bond movie I've seen in about 8 years. Really impressed. Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbabyte Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 I thought the movie was enjoyable but not great.. Casino Royale was much better IMO. The lack of gadgets didn't really bother me, and i did miss the "funny" bond moments, but the story line was a bit dark as bond was being chased by his own people so it's acceptable. The only big gripe i had with the film is the action scenes, i felt as if it was similar to the 2nd Bourne movie, where it's so fast paced i have no idea who's hitting who, who's falling, who's dying.. i just have to wait it out and find out later. I see arms flying, punches being thrown but have no idea who's hitting who, which was confusing any really dissapointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C++ Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 It wasn't nearly as memorable as Casino Royale but I can't hold that against it. Casino Royale set the bar impossibly high. This one still ran circles around every recent Bond movie before Daniel Craig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrCheese Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 It wasn't nearly as memorable as Casino Royale but I can't hold that against it. Casino Royale set the bar impossibly high. This one still ran circles around every recent Bond movie before Daniel Craig. No it didn't. It was just chase after chase after chase. Car chase, Running chase, boat chase, plane chase and then a few explosions. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Freeman Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 No it didn't. It was just chase after chase after chase. Car chase, Running chase, boat chase, plane chase and then a few explosions. The end. That pretty much sums it up. Given good editing and nice cinematography it would have been fine, to just watch it as another action movie, but no, cant have that. It seems someone edited it by metronome, and its a shame because lots of incredible stunts and such were just lost because of it - that fight near the beginning with tangling in the ropes and stuff. Oh well, at least intro was awesome... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts